What was the type of monster in the Loch Ness that attacked St. Columba?

I know that the 6th century biography of Christian monk St. Columba mentions that he saw a monster in the Loch Ness in 564 CE. However, the revival of interest in the legend of the Loch Ness Monster did not take place until the 1930s, and the story about St. Columba seeing monster in the Loch Ness doesn't specifically say what type of monster St. Columba saw. Is it possible that the monster from the Loch Ness mentioned in the biography of St. Columba was some sort of fish, given that the Loch Ness was formed during the Ice Age and some sightings of Nessie in the 1930s were found to be either toy submarines or elephants swimming in the lake as part of a traveling circus in the UK?

a reply to: Potlatch

Very interesting thanks for sharing.

I think the loch ness monster is a pleiosaurus. The depictions we have from modern times match perfectly. It would corroborate with the many other depictions of dinosaurs shared by our ancestors. I compiled a list of the evidence here: ancient dinosaur depictions

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Potlatch

Very interesting thanks for sharing.

I think the loch ness monster is a pleiosaurus. The depictions we have from modern times match perfectly. It would corroborate with the many other depictions of dinosaurs shared by our ancestors. I compiled a list of the evidence here: ancient dinosaur depictions

The Loch Ness was actually formed during the Ice Age, long after the plesiosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Its nice to believe in it, but im of the opinion now that somebody by now would have proved or disproved it

it certainly would need to be coming up for air far more often and after millions of years at-least have re-spawned tens of thousands of offspring

a reply to: Potlatch

Ok Potlach. Going for this one. Amber orange type ufo orb that shape shifts into what humans know as the Loch Ness Monster

originally posted by: Potlatch

The Loch Ness was actually formed during the Ice Age, long after the plesiosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Allegedly. But what specific evidence actually proves that? Many believe the experts despite not knowing the evidence. In actuality the historical evidence says otherwise, that we co-existed with dinosaurs:

pleiosaurus

This is a depiction of the sea monster in the story of Jonah. This shows people's impressions at the time that sea monsters were known to sometimes look like a pleiosaurus.

It also matches the pictures of Nessie that we have.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Its nice to believe in it, but im of the opinion now that somebody by now would have proved or disproved it

it certainly would need to be coming up for air far more often and after millions of years at-least have re-spawned tens of thousands of offspring

There could be an underground cavern. They found deep trenches at the bottom of Loch Ness

The St Columba story takes place in the River Ness. Not the loch.

Today, the "Loch Ness Monster" is simply anything anyone sees in the loch that they cannot immediately identify - whether that be a bird, deer, salmon, otter, eel, log, branch, boat, wave, whirlwind, shadow or tribe of water wombles.

I believe it was established several years ago by senior Marine biologists that Loch Ness does not and never has had enough life (food stuff) to support a large predator.

a reply to: Potlatch

Maybe an eel of some sort, thats the latest idea on the Loch Ness Monster?




a reply to: cooperton

The Loch wasn't around till the ice age, long after the dinos' died out.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

The Loch wasn't around till the ice age, long after the dinos' died out.

Cooperton thinks the dinosaurs only died out in Noah's Flood 6000 years ago

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Potlatch

Maybe an eel of some sort, thats the latest idea on the Loch Ness Monster?




a reply to: cooperton

The Loch wasn't around till the ice age, long after the dinos' died out.

Agreed, not to mention millions of years of inbreeding and nothing washes ashore or found aside from pics

originally posted by: Potlatch

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Potlatch

Very interesting thanks for sharing.

I think the loch ness monster is a pleiosaurus. The depictions we have from modern times match perfectly. It would corroborate with the many other depictions of dinosaurs shared by our ancestors. I compiled a list of the evidence here: ancient dinosaur depictions

The Loch Ness was actually formed during the Ice Age, long after the plesiosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

I'd be careful with that. Its consensus opinion however "science", archeology and all that white-coat stuff is delivered to us and we are sniffed at for questioning it. How do we know our ability to measure and date artifacts is actually accurate. How do we "know' there was an ice age anymore than we can say there was or wasn't a flood? Did the term "dinosaur" even exist in 500AD......or 1000AD.....or 1650 AD?

Are things made-up?

Absolutely.

And I think it sometimes works both ways...especially when money riding on narrative is at stake (institutions)

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

The Loch wasn't around till the ice age, long after the dinos' died out.

Cooperton thinks the dinosaurs only died out in Noah's Flood 6000 years ago

And what do YOU think? You come off as though you are truly in on something.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Potlatch

Maybe an eel of some sort, thats the latest idea on the Loch Ness Monster?




a reply to: cooperton

The Loch wasn't around till the ice age, long after the dinos' died out.

And we KNOW that?

I remember when Pluto was said to be a planet. That changed. I could go on and on.

Evolution? A theory. But its laid out as if it were an actual fact; a blueprint.

The last 2-plus have underlined everything I ever suspected and later saw, measured and put together re all of our educated, grandiose smugness re knowing how it all worked under the hood re history, science, anthropology, astronomy, archeology, what have you. The know-it-all-power-hungry academics have the act down pat but invariably time causes them to scramble to come up with a new excuse or direction. I'm reasonably sure that there have been open-minded truth seekers over time in each field, but if the accepted narrative isn't followed choices are made, voices are squelched, people get marginalized or worse.

If one stands back and looks through a wide scope and uses a degree of discernment, tourism didn't start the Scottish/Irish loch claims. We are talking over 1500 years of tales. Some of them fantastic based on our modern conditioning. Less than a 100 years of pics. Many suspect, a few hard to determine. The questions abound. Why no bodies? Long necks, no necks, smooth back, humps, horse head, camel-like, Long legs, no legs, flippers, slug-like, its endless.

I have no clear answer other than a theory that certain places hold certain energies, and with that sometimes something very illusory and even queer can occur, if only briefly.

The discovery of the Coelacanth should if anything be a cautionary tale on our race' flawed ability to mount the summit of knowledge and understanding, even over centuries.

Here's a possible clue. Take it or leave it. Acceptance is a choice (as with anything). Go back about 400 years or more and folks were a little more concerned with what they didn't see or grasp as much as what was apparent. Fast forward to the present. Few today believe their own intuition, their own eyes. Few seem capable of putting everything into the shaker and drawing their own conclusion. It has all been figured out; THAT is what we are told and to be smart with have to get in line with that thinking. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Right or wrong I'm not afraid to step into this loch of questions and quandary. Taken as a whole I believe we are being toyed with re the Scottish/Irish lochs lore, and I believe mankind hasn't uncovered the matter.

originally posted by: BiffTannen

originally posted by: Potlatch

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Potlatch

Very interesting thanks for sharing.

I think the loch ness monster is a pleiosaurus. The depictions we have from modern times match perfectly. It would corroborate with the many other depictions of dinosaurs shared by our ancestors. I compiled a list of the evidence here: ancient dinosaur depictions

The Loch Ness was actually formed during the Ice Age, long after the plesiosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

I'd be careful with that. Its consensus opinion however "science", archeology and all that white-coat stuff is delivered to us and we are sniffed at for questioning it. How do we know our ability to measure and date artifacts is actually accurate. How do we "know' there was an ice age anymore than we can say there was or wasn't a flood? Did the term "dinosaur" even exist in 500AD......or 1000AD.....or 1650 AD?

Are things made-up?

Absolutely.

And I think it sometimes works both ways...especially when money riding on narrative is at stake (institutions)

The term "dinosaur" was coined by Richard Owen in the 1840s. Here's the link which says something about the Loch Ness being formed about 10,000 years ago:
www.nessie.co.uk...

originally posted by: Potlatch

originally posted by: BiffTannen

originally posted by: Potlatch

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Potlatch

Very interesting thanks for sharing.

I think the loch ness monster is a pleiosaurus. The depictions we have from modern times match perfectly. It would corroborate with the many other depictions of dinosaurs shared by our ancestors. I compiled a list of the evidence here: ancient dinosaur depictions

The Loch Ness was actually formed during the Ice Age, long after the plesiosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

I'd be careful with that. Its consensus opinion however "science", archeology and all that white-coat stuff is delivered to us and we are sniffed at for questioning it. How do we know our ability to measure and date artifacts is actually accurate. How do we "know' there was an ice age anymore than we can say there was or wasn't a flood? Did the term "dinosaur" even exist in 500AD......or 1000AD.....or 1650 AD?

Are things made-up?

Absolutely.

And I think it sometimes works both ways...especially when money riding on narrative is at stake (institutions)

The term "dinosaur" was coined by Richard Owen in the 1840s. Here's the link which says something about the Loch Ness being formed about 10,000 years ago:
www.nessie.co.uk...

Interesting. Thank you.

So if the descriptive classification "dinosaur" came about in the 1800's, what term did they use back in 500AD, 1200AD and thereafter?

"Dragon"?

I live near loch Ness ,many think there are tunnels due to volcanic activity in the past that connect loch Ness with other lochs in the area and further afield, if you are a local and come out with I seen Nessie you would get slaughtered and laughed out of town .

As a young lad I spoke to a old poacher one night there's something there but what ? .also confirmed by someone who stays right on the loch and they were serious no larking about .

And Saint Columba converting the Pics to Christianity lol look up bell of the phonectians


I have shown some lady tourists Nessie's little known cousin Hamish the kilt monster

originally posted by: BiffTannen
So if the descriptive classification "dinosaur" came about in the 1800's, what term did they use back in 500AD, 1200AD and thereafter?

"Dragon"?

Pterosaurs formed the basis of legendary European dragons, and choristoderan fossils may have formed the basis of dragons from Chinese legend with elongated, serpentine bodies. The book "Fossil Legends of the First Americans" discusses how Native Americans used fossil bones of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals from North America as the basis for a number of creatures from Native American folklore, like the Tyrannosaurus-like Kenabeek, the thunder horses, and so on. Native Americans did not know that there were distinct groups of reptiles living in North America during the Mesozoic.

I saw a good docu about the Loch Ness 'monster' and it's most probable and very reasonable conclusion was that it might be a giant sturgeon. The sightings match up pretty well, even with the location..these beast can get quite huge, up to 5 meters and 2 tons weight.